Re: Physics for ex-farmers

Thus spake Oz <Oz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>I am more after a long letter to carr.

I am not sure how to do that. I suspect that to get anywhere I have to
present the paper in a form a physicist will be interested enough to
read, and the most it should have is a short covering note. I am
currently holding back on trying to find a collaborator until I think I
have this right. Carr, if appropriate, should be approached by you,
rather than me. I expect the best he could do is push the thing in the
direction of a post doc. Depending on the post doc, that might be great.
>
>Charles Francis <charles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
>>This is the revised first section. Is it still too cranky? Detailed
>>comments much appreciated.
>>
>>Does a Teleconnection between Quantum States account for Missing Mass,
>>Galaxy Ageing, Supernova Redshift, MOND, and Pioneer Blue-shift?
>>
>>Abstract:
>>There have been previous suggestions, notably by Einstein, that the
>>affine connection in general relativity might be replaced with a
>>teleparallel one. This paper carries out a preliminary investigation of
>>the empirical implications of a teleparallel displacement of momentum
>>between initial and final quantum states, using conformally flat quantum
>>coordinates. An exact formulation is possible in an FRW cosmology in
>>which cosmological redshift is given by 1+z=a0^2/a^2(t). This is
>>consistent with observation for a universe expanding at half the rate
>>and twice as old as indicated by a linear law, and requiring a quarter
>>of the critical density for closure. To first order, supernova redshifts
>>indicating Omega_M=0.3, Omega_Lambda=0.7 in standard cosmology are
>>consistent with a closed universe close to critical density and with
>>zero cosmological constant. Quantum coordinates exhibit an acceleration
>>in time, resulting in the anomalous Pioneer blue-shift and in the
>>flattening of galaxies’ rotation curves. These appear as optical effects
>>and do not affect classical motions. Milgrom’s phenomenological law
>>(MOND) is precisely obeyed.
>>
>>1 Introduction
>>1.1 Background
>>There are well known difficulties in the formulation of quantum theories
>>in curved spacetime (e.g. Dirac, 1964; Eppley and Hannah, 1977).
>>Einstein (1930) found problems with electrodynamics in curved space
>>time, and suggested that the affine connection used in general
>>relativity might be replaced with a teleparallel connection.
>
><snip: this is a results paper>

I have cut down the first para so that it now reads

1.1 Background
Einstein (1930) found problems with electrodynamics in curved space
time, and suggested that the affine connection used in general
relativity might be replaced with a teleparallel connection. Such a
replacement can also be motivated in the orthodox interpretation of
quantum mechanics; if it does not make sense to talk of position between
measurements then it is also senseless to talk of geodesic motion of a
photon emitted from a distant star and detected on Earth. This paper
carries out a preliminary investigation of the empirical implications of
using teleparallel displacement of momentum between initial and final
quantum states. Since the connection is meaningful only at the times of
measurement it will be called a teleconnection. Standard general
relativity and quantum mechanics are assumed, excepting that wave
functions are defined using quantum coordinates (section 2.3), not in
curved spacetime. It will be seen that this can be done consistently in
an FRW cosmology obeying the cosmological principle, that the
prescription reduces to the standard affine connection in the classical
correspondence, and that geodesic motion obtains for classical particles
and for a beam of light (section 2.4).

>>Currently manual tests have been applied. More rigorous testing requires
>>detailed computer analysis of data which is beyond the scope of this
>>paper. For simplicity a closed universe with zero cosmological constant
>>and no cold dark matter will be discussed. Other models are possible but
>>up to the accuracy of the tests applied here this simple model is
>>consistent with data, gives accounts of observed phenomena which the
>>standard model has been unable to explain and makes clear predictions
>>with regard to future tests. In the instances of supernova redshift and
>>galactic rotation curves testing has been done, not through direct
>>statistical analysis, but by deriving a general law and comparing it
>>with an empirical law already established through detailed statistical
>>analysis.
><add: ie MOND>

okay

In the instances of supernova redshift and galactic rotation curves
testing has been done, not through direct statistical analysis, but by
deriving general laws (the magnitude-redshift relation and MOND) and
comparing it with an empirical law already established through detailed
statistical analysis
>>
>
><more snip>
>
>>1.3 Comparison with the Standard Model
>>The cosmological microwave background defines the reference frame in
>>which photons are emitted. This scales coordinates at the time of the
>>production of CMB photons and the usual linear red shift law applies.
>>The square law applies when all the information about the initial state
>>is contained in the detected light, as in the observation of
>>astronomical bodies.
>
>The above is not actually related to the immediately below and so the
>above can be deleted.

It must be stated, otherwise it appears that the CMB is also subject to
the square law, and the analysis becomes totally screwed. It is
absolutely critical that in determination of Hubble from redshift the
initial state cannot, even in principle, be described in any reference
frame other than that determined in the final measurement. This has to
be made clear.

>>It follows immediately that the rate of expansion
>>of the universe is half that predicted by the standard model, the
>>universe is twice as old as would be indicated by a linear law, and
>>critical density for closure is a quarter of the standard value.
>>
>>An immediate consequence is that there is no timescale problem for a
>>closed universe with greater than critical density and zero cosmological
>>constant. If observations at high red shift had revealed the expected
>>activity of the early universe it would have falsified the square red
>>shift law; in fact it receives support from the observation of mature
>>galaxies at z=1.4 and greater (e.g. Mullis et al., 2005; Doherty et al
>>2005, and references cited therein).
>
>I would suggest a longer and more detailed argument for the advantages
>of using an older universe over the bodges used to reconcile the above
>(extended list) of papers.
>
>>As described by Glazebrook (2004),
>>there is poor agreement between current theoretical models of galaxy
>>evolution and empirical data. It has been suggested (Cimatti et. al,
>>2004) that the theoretical models may be inaccurate, but there is no
>>good theoretical reason to doubt the accuracy of computer simulations
>>using classical general relativity. A detailed study is required to
>>assess consistency between observation and theory, but in this model
>>value of Hubble’s constant h=0.72 places an upper bound on the age of
>>the universe of eighteen billion years, so that at redshift 6 the
>>universe may already have been up to 4.5 billion years old. Hopefully
>>future observation and analysis will be conclusive.
>
>The above is unspecific as to who is arguing what and why.

Glazebrook states poor agreement (non-controversial).
Cimatti suggests computer simulations of theoretical models are dodgy.
(this seems to be the orthodox position)
I point out that we are actually very good at producing computer
simulations and that classical general relativity is very well
understood, so I question Cimatti's position.

Hmmm.

As described by Glazebrook (2004), there is poor agreement between
current theoretical models of galaxy evolution and empirical data. To
explain this it has been suggested (e.g. Cimatti et. al, 2004) that the
theoretical models may be inaccurate. This model presents alternative,
that a square redshift law means that we have to revise the ages of red
galaxies; a value of Hubble’s constant h=0.72 places an upper bound on
the age of the universe of eighteen billion years, so that at redshift 6
the universe may already have been up to 4.5 billion years old. A
detailed study is required to assess consistency between observation and
theory, but this certainly appears to alleviate the difficulities.
Hopefully future observation and analysis will be conclusive.

>
>>For some years the Pioneer spacecraft have been sending back Doppler
>>information interpreted as an anomalous acceleration toward the sun
>>(Anderson et al., 2002). No accepted explanation has been given for the
>>anomalous blue-shift, but if it were not observed it would be fatal to
>>this model.
>
>> the model predicts blue-shift
>>simulating constant acceleration toward the origin of coordinates, that
>>is toward the observer on Earth. The anomalous Pioneer blue shift is
>>seen as an optical effect due to <hubble> expansion (section 3.2).
>
>
>>A future test
>>is planned which will determine whether the acceleration is toward the
>>Sun, toward the Earth, in the direction of motion of the craft, or along
>>the spin axis (Nieto et. al. 2004). If the direction is not toward the
>>Earth the test will falsify this model.
>
>>The Pioneer blue shift is also present in the observation of distant
>>galaxies, and precisely accounts for flattening of galaxies’ rotation
>>curves consistent with MOND, the phenomenological law found by Milgrom
>>(1994). A review of MOND is given by Sanders & McGough (2002). Again the
>>anomaly appears as an optical effect arising from the treatment of
>>redshift, not a real change to Newtonian dynamics (section 3.3). If
>>galaxies’ rotation curves did not obey MOND it would falsify this as a
>>no CDM model. The MOND test is particularly important as data fits have
>>been given for over 100 galaxies and thousands of stars, because cold
>>dark matter does not give any explanation as to why the precisely same
>>acceleration law should be found in galaxies of many sizes and types,
>>because there is no other empirical evidence for CDM haloes and because
>>there is no satisfactory theory of CDM in particle physics.
>
><The above is good, but needs some more work of a jim nature>

Trust you to suggest that when Jim is off line.
>
>>The accelerations of galaxies in clusters are in the MONDian regime and,
>>after revising the redshift-age relation, there is no immediate evidence
>>that CDM is necessary for galaxy evolution, but the model does not
>>dispense with dark matter. The analyses of big bang nucleosynthesis and
>>of decoupling are unaltered, but the density of baryonic matter becomes
>>0.064<=Omega_B h^2<=0.096 after normalising Omega_cr to 1 (3.1.4). Thus
>>baryonic matter forms 10-20% of critical mass, and at an extreme, the
>>ratio of non-baryonic to baryonic matter need only be 4:1 for closure,
>>well within the range of values which might be accounted for by a
>>massive neutrino.
>
>We need to discuss this on another thread.

Do you want to get the ball rolling?
>
>>In standard cosmology a best fit with supernova data is found for the
>>concordance model, Omega=Omega_M=0.3, Omega_Lambda=0.7 (Reiss et al.,
>>2004; Filippenko, 2004, and references cited therein). To first order in
>>z, for a closed cosmos with zero cosmological constant the magnitude-
>>redshift relation found in section 3.1 is identical to that of the
>>standard model with Omega_M=0.41 and Omega_Lambda=0.59. The second order
>>correction at z=1 is close to 0.1, giving a good fit, but it remains to
>>determine best fit values of Omega and Omega_Lambda using an iterative
>>solution.
>
><Clear conclusion needed>

My conclusion is that I need a collaborator who understands the code
used to get the redshift magnitude relation, so that we can adapt it and
compare the result to the published data. Almost certainly the result
won't be conclusive, but a detailed statistical analysis is required to
say which is a better fit. (not really my field, too many numbers
changing their values when you are not looking). I see this as a
separate paper.
>
>>The concordance model is supported by the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect
>>(Afshordi, Loh & Strauss; 2004; Boughn & Crittendon, 2004; Fosalba et
>>al., 2003; Nolta et al., 2004; Scranton et al., 2004) using evidence
>>from the Two-Degree Field Galaxy Redshift Survey (2dFGRS; Pea*** et al.
>>2001; Percival et al., 2001; Efstathiou, 2002), and from the Wilkinson
>>Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP; Spergal, 2003, and references cited
>>therein). In practice these measurements determine cosmological
>>parameters rather than test consistency, and they depend on the distance
>>scale found from redshift. A distortion in the distance scale will alter
>>acceleration in a definite way, so that, if the standard model is
>>consistent, the optical distortions due to the square redshift law can
>>be expected to give consistent values of Omega and Omega_Lambda in
>>different tests at least to first order. However Spergal comments on
>>discrepancies in the WMAP data on both the largest and smallest scales,
>>and Copi et al (2005) report on unexplained alignments in the data. It
>>is not presently possible to say whether these could be caused by higher
>>order corrections in the analysis of data; for example it may be
>>necessary to take account of pioneer blue shift before removing
>>foreground contamination.
>
><un-nice and needs a rewrite>

I was hoping everyone would pass over that bit.



Regards

--
Charles Francis
Please reply by name
.